My first thread to the forum!
Some photos of my one and only Omega (one and only watch of any worth for that matter!) for your appreciation - the 564 cal. "AUTOMATIC CHRONOMETER OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED" Seamaster ref. 166.010 from 1970.

I wanted to get your opinion on the patina? I understand that the dial would originally have been more silver but seems to have turned more of a champagne colour over time. Or am I wrong altogether on this point? I was originally rather taken aback by this as I had bought it from a seller from Japan on ebay and in the listing pictures the dial certainly looked much more silver than in reality but it tends to look slightly different depending on what angle you look at it from and how it catches the light. I guess this is part of the charm though and I have very much warmed to this since buying it. It was also originally supplied with a brown crocodile strap which accentuated the champagne colouring but I have now replaced it with a "beads of rice" bracelet which seems to lightly contrast the champagne colouring in a complimentary way rather than accentuating it as much as the brown crocodile strap did.

 

Welcome, and could you please load the pictures .

 

Photos:

 

Here are some ones for comparison from the ebay listing with the brown crocodile strap:

 

I had come across the following article on the blog Worn & Wound when I was considering my first foray into the world of vintage Omegas and absolutely loved that particular model :

http://wornandwound.com/affordable-vintage-1970-omega-seamaster-chronometer-ref-166-010/

and was luckily to find the very same one on the bay so went for it on a whim - good purchase?

 

Nice watch. Do you have a pic of the reference number? I had thought this was a 168.024. Perhaps it's a regional thing. At any rate, excellent watch provided you got it at a good price. Welcome to the club.

 

Hi Gordon, thanks! Here is one of the caseback. Having googled it they do look strikingly similar so I would be interested if anyone knows the difference between the two refs?

 

Need shot of the movement. Please.

 

Hi pippy, here is a pic of the movement from when I had it serviced in the autumn. The gasket needed replacing which they were in the process of doing in that pic

 

Is this movement from your watch?

 

Here are some from the original ebay listing but I doubt they will tell you anything that the above pic won't

 

yes it is from mine

 

Thank you. Beautiful watch.

 

As far as I know, the 168. and 166. denotes either a chronometer or non-chronometer movement. It is not unusual to find casebacks with two sets of reference numbers on them, in the case that they were used on two different references sharing the same case.

That would mean that yours should be called a 168.024, not 166.010. I think that Worn&Wound got it wrong...

 

Have a look here:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/my-newest-acquisition-seamaster-168-024.54014/

 

Hello and welcome to the forum.

Inside my case back there are two ref: 166.010 and 168.024.


The Seamaster chronometer 564 is a nice watch to have and congrats on your new purchase.

(I just bought 2 more)

 

Thanks @ConElPueblo and @hoipolloi for your input and for that link. Intriguing! The caseback photo I posted above with only the ref: 166.010 was from my own watch - would that mean that either the caseback may have come from a different watch at some point, or that the dial could have been replaced with the chronometer version dial when it is in fact not the chronometer certified movement?

 

If it were my watch I wouldn't worry overly much. The author of the article you posted has a caseback exactly like yours. In fact, they are both HF cases, as opposed to the other caseback which is a CB. Maybe a pattern exists.

 

Admit it... You're in an arms race with MSNWatch

Yours have a 564, right? That is always a chronometer, so dial and movement fits

 

Indeed, I treasure it anyway regardless. Can you tell me the significance of HF/SP or what they stand for? I hadn't really noticed this before to be honest!